Social Media Icon Links

Members

Take the wait-and-see approach when it comes to development at Vetch's Pier.

That was the advice given on Tuesday by the eThekwini Municipality's chairman of the human settlements committee, Nigel Gumede, to the city's executive committee.

The municipality, embroiled in legal battles over the proposed development of Vetch's Beach since 2001, has been trying to push for a leasing agreement for a small-craft harbour and hotel to go through despite pending legal challenges and threats of more court action.

Gumede said the municipality should not be hasty in adopting the recommendations, but instead should wait for the city's lawyers to give the committee more information on the contentious subject.

"If we agree to these recommendations, they may be a non-starter if the court case is not resolved," he said, referring to recommendations that the city should go ahead with the proposed development despite threats of a legal challenge.

The lease - which Gumede said needed to be amended from 99 years to 20 years - would pave the way for a multibillion-rand development, including a hotel, luxury flats, shops and a new yacht marina.

The city was backtracking on the term of the lease agreement because the Integrated Coastal Management Act of 2009 stated that public property could only be leased for a maximum of 20 years, unless the environmental minister and Parliament agreed to extend it.

The city has in the past said that the proposed development would not only attract about R4 billion in private investment, but would also create about 5 000 permanent and 6 000 temporary jobs.

In 2010, the Save Vetch's Association (SVA), which described the development as "a playground for the super rich", launched two court challenges. The first was to contest environmental approval of the development. The group also sought to set aside the developer's boundaries or high-water mark in the second application.

The two matters are still pending, but the SVA has threatened that it would mount another challenge if the lease was approved.

The document tabled at yesterday's meeting recommended that council agree to enter into a lease with the national government in respect of the seashore, the sea and the sea bed between Vetch's Pier and the North Pier of the Durban Harbour for a period of 99 years at a total rental of R99 000, payable in one sum.

It further recommended that the council authorise city manager Sibusiso Sithole to sign all documentation necessary to bring the lease into effect.

However, Gumede said: "If we agree (to the recommendations), this may be a non-starter if the court case is not resolved. We may find ourselves with resolutions that can't be implemented."

The matter was deferred to the next meeting.

This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

The eThekwini Municipality is expected to push for the controversial leasing of a portion of Vetch's beach to go through despite pending legal challenges and threats of more court action.

A report on the 99-year lease - which would pave the way for a multibillion-rand development, including a five-star hotel, luxury flats, shops and a new yacht marina - was set to be tabled before the municipality's executive committee at a meeting on Wednesday.The report, signed by the city's head of treasury, the head of the legal unit and by the head of real estate, recommends that the city enter into a 99-year lease agreement with the national Department of Transport at a total rental of R99 000, payable in one sum.The lease could be renewed for a further 99 years.The lease would allow developments to go through and the city could sub-lease part of the beach.Opposition parties have warned the city not to ignore pending legal challenges by "ramming through" the development and the lease.Minority Front councillor Patrick Pillay said that while it was clear that the city wanted to go ahead, such a move may prove to be suicidal on the council's part."There are still pending court actions and we cannot go into a development until all the legal avenues have been exhausted by the aggrieved parties, because that might come back to haunt us," he said.The DA's Tex Collins, said his party was "100 percent" opposed to the Vetch's development. "There is no way we can ignore these legal challenges... especially because at the moment, the city is losing more cases than it is winning."In 2010, the Save Vetch's Association (SVA) launched two court challenges.The first was to contest environmental approval of the development. The group also sought to set aside the developer's boundaries or high-water mark in the second application.The two matters are still pending, but the SVA threatened yesterday that it would mount another challenge if the lease was approved.But the SVA and the DA argue that the minister of transport did not have the authority to lease the seabed.The city's application to Transport Minister S'bu Ndebele was based on the minister having the power to issue the lease in terms of the Seashore Act of 1935.Opposing parties said that only the minister of water and environmental affairs has the authority to lease the sea, the seabed and the seashore. This is based on the Integrated Management Act of 2008, which also limits the period of a lease to 20 years.Collins said that when two acts were in conflict, the newer one should prevail.But in a letter to Ndebele dated August 2009, written by the then municipal manager, Mike Sutcliffe, the city said it had been advised by the KZN Department of Agriculture and Environmental Affairs that the land and sea in question did not fall within its jurisdiction and that only the minister of transport could conclude the lease.The lawyer representing the SVA, Michael Jackson, was adamant that the leasing of the area by the transport minister would be illegal.Collins said that the DA believed the sea, the seabed and the seashore belonged to all South Africans. He argued that if the development was allowed, the area would be exclusive - one for the enjoyment of the "obscenely rich", while ratepayers would pick up the tab for developments.He said his partly believed that no development should take place below the high-water mark, warning that any development below that would not be sustainable.The city said the proposed development would not only attract about R4 billion in private investment, but would also create about 5 000 permanent and 6 000 temporary jobs.

Daily News
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

The controversy swirling around the proposed construction of a small craft harbour adjacent to Vetch's pier

(Mercury, January 13) bears a striking resemblance to that which attended the Vetch plan in the 1860s.

Aside from misgivings about the cost of Captain James Vetch's plan (165,000 pounds), the engineer tasked with

executing it, George Abernethy,found it was faulty in two fundamental ways: the proposed entrance to the enclosed

area ignored the prevailing wind and current directions. Essentially Vetch proposed an enclosed area outside the

natural entrance to the bay.

Financial reasons and poor construction methods saw Vetch's pier abandoned in 1864. In time the ocean reduced it

to what it is today. Both in design and placement, the smallcraft harbour now being proposed ignores the same natural

forces that made Vetch's plan impractical. Besides, it specifically ignores the pounding effects of the cyclone swells

which emanate occasionally from the Mozambique channel.

DUNCAN DU BOIS

Extended Version

Vetch’s pier has redeemed itself by becoming a marine sanctuary***. Historically, however, it is an expensive relic, a monument to flawed planning, poor workmanship and economic frustration.

Although potentially a major seaport, Durban’s bay was little more than an inaccessible lagoon before dredging and the construction of the north and south piers over a century ago unlocked its real worth. Nature guarded its entrance in the form of shifting sandbanks which made access to the safety of the inner harbor unpredictable and hazardous. As a result entry was restricted to small vessels drawing less than three metres of water. All other shipping had to anchor offshore and endure the extremes of wind and sea. Not surprisingly 66 ships were blown ashore on Durban’s beachfront between 1845 and 1885.

It was obvious from the outset to the British settlers that Natal’s economic prospects depended on the development of Durban harbour. For almost 50 years from 1850 the ‘harbour issue’ was the hardy annual of Natal politics and the correspondence columns of newspapers. Various plans were put forward, that of Captain James Vetch gaining the approval of Governor John Scott in 1857. Vetch, an engineer attached to the Admiralty in London, never actually visited Durban, yet he produced a report and plan to improve the harbour. Despite misgivings, it was rushed through the Natal legislature in October 1859 along with its hefty price tag -£165,000.

Vetch’s solution was to enclose the natural entrance to the harbour by means of two breakwaters, one curving northwards from the base of the Bluff headland and the other curving southwards from present day Ushaka beach. Besides the engineering challenge which that posed, Vetch’s plan ignored the prevailing wind an ocean current directions. But in August 1861 when construction of the northern breakwater commenced, such concerns were lost amidst the optimism of a growing economy and the belief that Vetch’s plan would resolve the frustrations of navigating the entrance to the harbour. A comment in the Natal Mercury on 13 July 1861 summed up the buoyant mood of colonists when it stated that Vetch’s plan would herald ‘new circumstances and be the scene of a busy, all pervading and prosperous industry.’

The site engineer, George Abernethy, encountered difficulties with Vetch’s plan from the outset. The method of construction was impractical: sections of wooden framework filled with rubble simply collapsed in the surf, moreover, the contractor, Thomas Jackson, lacked the capacity to carry out the construction. Early in 1863 it was apparent that the six year project was stalled. Yet £90,000 of the budgeted £165,000 had been spent while less than ten percent of the work had been completed.

In May 1864 a furious Natal Legislative Council demanded a detailed report on the Vetch project. In June the contractor walked off the job and left Natal. The Report tabled in August proved an embarrassing indictment. It found that no oversight had been exercised by Treasury officials on certificates for amounts payable and that the contractor had received payments in excess to that which he was entitled. It was also noted that freight for some materials had been paid for twice; that material had been ordered which was in excess of actual needs. To top it all, £113,500 or 70 percent of the allocated budget, had been spent on a project that was scarcely 20 percent complete and the problem of accessing Durban harbour was no closer to resolution.

2

Far from invigorating Natal’s economy, the submerged finger of an incomplete pier named after its designer, Captain Vetch, proved a drain on the colonial treasury for years to come, interest on the loan for the project amounting to about 17 percent of total revenue. A project born out of economic frustration left a legacy of even greater economic frustration. Until the 1880s Durban harbour languished having gained a reputation as a port of high charges and long delays. But from 1886 when dredging operations began, followed by extension of the breakwaters, the depth of the entrance channel improved. By 1892 it averaged over four metres allowing larger ships to cross the bar.

But the way forward was dogged by controversy. Two camps developed: one which saw the solution in dredging, the other in the extension of the north pier. So great was the agitation that it led to the fall of the government of Harry Escombe in October 1897. Ultimately, a combination of the scour facilitated by the north and south piers and the effects of dredging resolved access to Durban harbour. In 1904, the Armadale Castle, drawing 6,7 metres of water, became the first mail-steamer to enter the port.

Although incomplete and a non-starter, the remains of Vetch’s pier should serve as a reminder of the power of the ocean and the need for fearless scrutiny of public projects.

------------------------

Duncan Du Bois is engaged in post-graduate research in the School of Historical Studies at UKZN.

The images below were taken at the Durban Undersea Club and Point Yacht Club Beach Site on 8 March 2012 and 11 March 2011 respectively and contain two clear indicators to any developer proposing to construct a small craft harbour at Vetch's Beach.

Indicator Number One: The tides do not bend to anybody's will or building plans. Are you sure you want to build your house on this sand?

Indicator Number Two: The tide of public awareness is growing. Yellow Save Vetch's stickers and t-shirts can be spotted all over town and the supporters list is growing daily with members of the public sending in information and images and asking questions. The questions are becoming more insistent: Who are behind these plans? What is to be gained from destroying THIS beach?

The Estuary Management Plan will impact on the way that the Bay is used and hopefully will improve environmental quality. It should therefore be supported by all yachties who use the area. However, it seems that the plan has been put together with no input from the clubs or marina!

It is also worrying to see that it is suggested that with the new development at Vetch’s there should be more space for shopping centres / waterfront use in town.

They don’t seem to have been told that Vetch’s is not suitable for mooring yachts!

Make use of the public meeting to learn more and to ask any questions that may be on your mind.